Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a careful review and analysis of employment-based pensions and other post-retirement benefits that may be available to Canadian workers when they retire, with particular emphasis on the extent to which such benefits are vulnerable to unilateral employer alteration or cancellation, and to the risks which arise in the event of the employer's insolvency. Taking stock of key differences between the rights of unionized employees and non-unionized ones, the author argues that the legal regimes governing common law employment, collective bargaining and pensions offer varying degrees of security for post-retirement benefits, depending on the type of regime applicable to the workplace and the type of benefit. However, as the paper goes on to explain, the situation changes dramatically if the employer becomes insolvent -- all the more so because the federal legislation which regulates creditors' rights in an insolvency enjoys paramountcy over the provincial legislation that deals with employment, collective bargaining and pensions (including any provision made in that provincial legislation for so-called deemed trusts). The author sets out and weighs the numerous risks confronting employees' pension and post-retirement benefits entitlements in both an insolvency liquidation proceeding and in a restructuring, again drawing attention to the different dynamics that may come into play in unionized and non-unionized workplaces. In general, he finds, the security of pensions is stronger than that of non-pension benefits, but will still depend on the adequacy of the pension plan’s funding before insolvency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".